https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Bug ID: 1614553 Summary: Review Request: soapy-rtlsdr - SoapySDR module for RTL-SDR hardware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: matt@domsch.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/sdr/soapy-rtlsdr.spec SRPM URL: https://domsch.com/fedora/sdr/soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: SoapyRTLSDR is a plug-in module for SoapySDR adding support for RTL-SDR hardware.
Fedora Account System Username: mdomsch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Not needed:
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- License is MIT not Boost: https://github.com/pothosware/SoapyRTLSDR/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /media/home/bob/packaging/review/soapy-rtlsdr/review- soapy-rtlsdr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/SoapySDR/modules0.7, /usr/lib64/SoapySDR [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in soapy- rtlsdr-debuginfo , soapy-rtlsdr-debugsource [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm soapy-rtlsdr-debuginfo-0.2.5-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm soapy-rtlsdr-debugsource-0.2.5-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc29.src.rpm soapy-rtlsdr.x86_64: W: no-documentation soapy-rtlsdr.src: W: strange-permission soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5.tar.gz 600 soapy-rtlsdr.src: W: strange-permission soapy-rtlsdr.spec 600 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
--- Comment #2 from Matt Domsch matt@domsch.com --- Thank you Robert. I have fixed the two items you noted above (license tag and rm -rf buildroot) and re-posted the spec file and packages, including SRPM, at the URL above.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/soapy-rtlsdr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28 liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28 soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b2b91c05b7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28, SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28, liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28, soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b2b91c05b7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1614553
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-08-30 00:52:59
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- CubicSDR-0.2.4-1.20180806gita7e4d91.fc28, SoapySDR-0.6.1-1.20180806gite694813.fc28, liquid-dsp-1.3.1-3.20180806git9658d81.fc28, soapy-rtlsdr-0.2.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com